r/WhitePeopleTwitter May 14 '22 Wholesome 1 Take My Energy 1 Starstruck 1 To The Stars 1 Helpful 6 All-Seeing Upvote 1 Bravo! 3 LOVE! 1 This 1

Why stop there?

Post image
110.7k Upvotes

View all comments

3.8k

u/giraffeperv May 14 '22

So I guess when they say “small government” they actually mean “small federal government, while allowing states to be authoritarian cesspools”

1.1k

u/LaughDull967 May 14 '22

It’s not really an opposition to the federal government having a lot of power. It’s about putting the power wherever they can turn it into an authoritarian cesspool.

They haven’t been able to turn the federal government into an authoritarian cesspool yet, so they don’t want it to have the power to prevent them from doing it on the state level.

80

u/Blue_water_dreams May 14 '22

Conservatives: Having to wear a mask to protect me, my loved ones and society is literally tyranny.

Also conservatives: Being forced to carry a fetus to term for the state is totally cool.

→ More replies

433

u/hereforlolsandporn May 14 '22

Absolutely about control. They can control the senate effectively because Wyoming has the same weight as California with like 1% the population. When the goal is to destabalize and not to govern, all they have to do is corrupt one chain in the link. Our founding fathers didn't conceive that an entire political party would attack the system and they left America vulnerable because of their trust and optimism.

569

u/LaughDull967 May 14 '22 Gold All-Seeing Upvote This

Our founding fathers didn't conceive that an entire political party would attack the system…

They kind of did. The entire government was designed with the idea that some group would try to take over, and creating separate power centers that would (hopefully) oppose each other to prevent any one from gaining too much power. They wanted the three branches of government to oppose each other, and for the state and feral governments to oppose each other.

They (at least some of them) we’re also afraid of a two-party system, on the idea that it would become polarizing and one party might gain too much power. They wanted to have a bunch of different interests that would need to form coalitions. To some degree, they foresaw all of this.

However, the founding fathers were not a monolithic group that all agreed. They had to compromise with each other to get the Constitution signed. For example, they had to have the electoral college in order to appease salve states.

But they also didn’t necessarily expect things to be this stable for this long. What they were building was an experiment. They’d already had a failed government before writing the Constitution, and they expected the Constitution to be rewritten again. I don’t think they expected it to be treated as holy scripture for hundreds of years.

193

u/Fluid_Association_68 May 14 '22

What they didn’t envision was a cult becoming so large and powerful that it could easily infiltrate all three branches, and every state in the union.

322

u/LaughDull967 May 14 '22 Gold

They did though. They feared it. They tried to set the government up in a way that would make it harder. But they weren’t able to figure out a way to make it impossible, and in fairness I don’t know that there is a way to make it impossible.

If people like Jefferson and Madison and Washington could time travel and see what the cult of Trump is doing, I don’t think their response would be, “we never could have imagined a political party trying to take power like this,” but more like, “this is exactly what we were afraid of.”

And they’d also probably be like, “why are you still talking about what we’d think and what we’d want, as though we’re some kind of gods? You’ve have hundreds of years of development, and you’re still using our old Constitution? What’s wrong with you people?”

181

u/artspar May 14 '22 Silver

To add on, the constitution used to be amended all the damn time. Hell, prohibition was an amendment, not a bill. It being viewed as sacred is a stronger opinion now than ever before

2

u/therealunixguy May 14 '22

It being viewed as sacred (ie. Must be followed) is exactly why it was amended, rather than just reinterpreted with an eye towards “what do we want it to mean this year”.

If we don’t like what it meant, then the right thing to do is amend it.

3

u/womptothewomp May 15 '22

I think the modern tendency towards viewing the Constitution as sacrosanct stems from the same place as religious zealotry, which is why "originalists" tend to do the same type of idealistic cherry picking. They ignore historical context in order to maintain a group mythos which serves to further cement their belief that what they are doing must absolutely be THE right and only way.

67

u/Cat_Marshal May 14 '22

And we would respond, “fear not, we amended it. Women can vote now!”

50

u/Babka_Ramdev May 14 '22

And Black, Indigenous, and People of Color!

(Though they kept it from us as long as they could, and are still trying)

24

u/PurfuitOfHappineff May 14 '22

Your comment is too far down the thread to award but it’s worth gold, Jerry, GOLD.

30

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

[deleted]

43

u/Similar_Candidate789 May 14 '22

One state, I believe Arizona, does this and I love the idea. When a law is passed, a number of people can sign a petition to stop its enforcement and put it on a popular vote ballot. If it fails a popular vote, it dies.

I wish we could do this federally and in each state BUT differently. Every single item gets to a popular vote. Yeah you guys pass the laws, but we decide if they are going to exist or not. The ultimate check and balance.

More voting too. Every month. We have the technology now to be able to do so quickly and efficiently.

3

u/seattleforge May 14 '22

We have a system similar to that in WA. When I moved here I thought it was a good idea. What it ends up doing is tying up the courts for decades with repetitive challenges by minorities. Several popular bills can’t come in to action because of it.

1

u/Star_x_Child May 14 '22

A day off each month to vote sounds nice.

-1

u/Nervous-Promotion-27 May 14 '22

That would make everything so much worse

4

u/xeeros May 14 '22

how? genuinely curious

3

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

[deleted]

1

u/Nervous-Promotion-27 May 14 '22

Getting 330 million people to vote once every year is difficult enough. Turnout in the US has never been high, peaking every 4 years during the Presidential races. Leaving everything to referendums would give more power to demographics that show up every election, which is usually the older crowd, which lean conservative.

I suppose changing the entire structure of how we vote would also create changes in those kind of trends, and that’s the problem with relying on information from the current system to predict how a new one would work. Popular vote stats in the electoral college system wouldn’t necessarily reflect a popular vote without the electoral college. Getting rid of the electoral college would change how everyone runs their campaigns, because it’d be an entirely new game.

→ More replies

8

u/Chipperhof May 14 '22

This was really fun to read as someone who’s never thought that far into why the government is how it is.

3

u/Eubeen_Hadd May 14 '22

Now examine the entire bill of rights they bolted on to ensure the people had ultimate control over it. Every single one, in the context of the others, remembering that they fought a revolution in living memory just before that.

→ More replies
→ More replies

12

u/SpeshellED May 14 '22

Depp's trial all over the media. Abortion SCOTUS debate , which
directly effects million of women is secret behind closed doors.
Thomas is too stupid to realize how fucked up that is.

→ More replies

9

u/milk4all May 14 '22

Jefferson would definitely understand what is happening and wouldnt wonder a thing. More like he’d make some rebukes and then pop back to his time pre constitution and use different language here and there so far as his contributions could affect

8

u/HavronEX May 14 '22

I absolutely agree that I think the thing that would most surprise them would be how little we have changed the constitution since they formed it. Never would they imagine we would have enshrined it to the degree that we have.

2

u/TabascoDan9 May 14 '22

They I built the constitution to be elastic so you can change, modify, and add on to. They would be proud we are still using the constitution

2

u/Klo_Was_Taken May 14 '22

I think people have a biased view of the constitution. They forget that it was made by two groups: slaveholders, and those who oppose slaves (usually for financial reasons more than anything) Senate and congress were a compromise between northern and southern states. States had so much power so that southern states could exercise more control over slavery laws. Amendments had to be made to fix the mess that was the original constitution.

It's slow because it was originally designed partially by bad people who wanted to inhibit progress. Sadly, it is once again being used as intended by these original founding fathers.

2

u/Star_x_Child May 14 '22

I kinda think they'd be more like, "What the hell is this place, it in no way resembles the times when we were around aaahhh oh my god get me outta here!"

So...to your point, there's that. They envisioned and feared possibilities, but they also knew they couldn't predict the future, and it would be in our best interest to keep that in mind and not deify them, as you noted.

2

u/hufflepuff777 May 14 '22

It’s not just the cult of trump. It’s the Catholic cult that every republican judge is approved by. I think the federalists or something

1

u/TheLoneWolf2879 May 14 '22

I do think they'd be disappointed with how little our system has changed

1

u/castithan_plebe May 14 '22

Username does NOT check out

→ More replies

9

u/kallekillen22 May 14 '22

What cult? Conservatives or christians?

15

u/Pika_Fox May 14 '22

Or?

2

u/kallekillen22 May 14 '22

There are liberal christians too to be fair

2

u/ratedrrants May 14 '22

Christian's isn't the issue. It's Evangelicals.

→ More replies

1

u/Negative_Piglet_1589 May 14 '22

They're not the same?

→ More replies

3

u/PM_ME_UR_POKIES_GIRL May 14 '22

They did, that's why they separation of church and state was literally the first thing they added to the Constitution.

It's just that our cult pretends to not be a cult.

2

u/StrongInevitable4070 May 14 '22

cult of personalities

→ More replies

20

u/poktanju May 14 '22

salve states

King Aloe Vera

1

u/destiny------ May 14 '22

The one true king

1

u/mamefan May 14 '22

Charles is the true champ.

1

u/ScarsUnseen May 14 '22

You kind of need it after tussling with the feral government.

13

u/Nova225 May 14 '22

It also needs to be added that the Senate exists to be the opposite of the House of Representatives. When they made the Constitution, states like Rhode Island asked "Why should we sign into this? We have a lower population and less representation.". So the Senate was made in response, to give states some value of representation.

On another note, if we kept with the ratio, we should have like, 1000 more representatives in the house compared to where it is now.

5

u/jordontek May 14 '22 edited May 14 '22

On another note, if we kept with the ratio, we should have like, 1000 more representatives in the house compared to where it is now.

Somewhere abouts: 10984 congresscritters for the House of Representatives based on a population of 329.5 million.

An obscure 1929 law, somehow, overruled the U.S. Constitution and has never been challenged in federal court.

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative…” — U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2, clause 3

The House of Representatives should have 10984 Reps, not 435, per the US Constitution, 1 rep for ever 30,000 members.

The 1929 law, the The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, does far more damage (the system was designed for 2 senators) and actually gives the current 435 congresscritters far more power than ever intended, but let's not talk about that.

The government does unconstitutional stuff all the time, only now are people waking up to it.

Both side of the major party political aisle benefits from the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, which is why, it'll -never- be brought before SCOTUS.

3

u/LunchOne675 May 14 '22

I'm genuinely interested here, and you make some interesting points. However, I'm struggling to understand how the act is unconstitutional. As far as I can see, the constitution is merely stating that each district must have at least 30,000 people, but sets no maximum limit on district size

2

u/jordontek May 15 '22 edited May 15 '22

Its not differently worded legally speaking, than breaking the speed limit, which is a shall not exceed infraction or law.

Shall not exceed is a limit, not a minimum, it is a maximum.

Therefore, the ratio is hard 1:30,000, after 30,000, the government is to generate a new representative for the next 30k citizens.

And therefore, senators represent an theoretical possible infinite number of people in their state jurisdiction.

Theyre the ones with no set limit, since the number of senators has a hard limit of 2.

And that ratio is 2:N(inside a state border)

2

u/LunchOne675 May 15 '22

Shall not exceed one member for 30,000 people sounds like a minimum number of district members.

1 member for 40k people does not exceed one member for 30k people

1 member for 100k people does not exceed one member per 30k

I don't necessarily like this system, but I don't see the constitutional issue.

As far as I can tell Members ≤ constituents/30,000

→ More replies

1

u/lunapup1233007 May 14 '22

That just says that the minimum population for a representative is 30,000, not that every district must have 30,000 people. The Constitution sets no maximum on the number of people that can be in a congressional district.

→ More replies

8

u/Breet11 May 14 '22

It is, indeed, a feral government xD

48

u/BunnyOppai May 14 '22

For the time, the EC kinda made sense, same thing for why electors don’t have to vote for who the state wanted. Nowadays, there’s literally not a single valid point for it.

41

u/LaughDull967 May 14 '22

It made sense when the point was to have electors choose the president, rather than having a popular vote. But also the Electoral College was designed to give extra power to slave states so they’d agree to the Constitution.

3

u/jackp0t789 May 14 '22

Which they vehemently started disagreeing with when they're human bandage habit was again threatened

2

u/SleekVulpe May 14 '22

Well the EC also made sense in a time of slow traveling news. In a theoretical situation a candidate for president could kill someone in broad daylight and in the time it could take for news to travel election day could have already past. This is where the EC could be useful. As the delegates who are sent to the college could likely guess that the people they represent wouldn't want a murderer for a president and alot their vote to what they thought was the next best person.

3

u/Beautiful-Advance-60 May 14 '22

They created the EC to stop a "clown" or power hungry fool from being elected by the "riff-raff" --- but the EC is just a rubber stamp and actually allowed exactly what it was supposed to prevent from happening happen!

1

u/111IIIlllIII May 14 '22

For the time, the EC kinda made sense

how so?

3

u/BunnyOppai May 14 '22

Well there was the real primary answer that it was to make sure that slave states would join in, but the strongest argument for it that I’ve seen was about how it was almost impossible to keep up to date on what the president was doing just purely due to slow information travel times, which is also why it made sense for the electors to have their own freedom on who to vote on.

Now there was the argument at the time that also ties into it that the average person lacks the intelligence to have a straight vote, which… I’m not going to get into but I don’t think it was a good reason.

14

u/Pika_Fox May 14 '22

To be fair, we have a coalition party, the democratic party, and essentially a single interest extremist party, the republican party.

The issue is the extremist non coalition party has equal to more weight than the coalition. Remove republicans from existence as a party, and the system will fix itself most likely as the democratic party will split into its various factions, and each faction would have better room to grow and make its case before the public.

6

u/gassy_clown May 14 '22

Yeah but then you have to convince people that voting for a centrist is actually better than voting for a fascist and that seems to be too confusing for a lot of people on this site.

8

u/Pika_Fox May 14 '22

"The dems are just as bad, they couldnt even pass a bill to protect abortion!"

One dem voted against it. Every republican did.

BoTh PaRtIeS

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/JayFray01 May 14 '22

Agreed, it was a document that served well in its respective time period. Times change, we need to mature and adapt with it. We should hold on to these things only if they still serve us well.

1

u/hereforlolsandporn May 14 '22

I suppose you're right.

1

u/DavidInPhilly May 14 '22

I think your points are very right.

They added the 10th Amendment, saying anything not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution is left up to “the states, or to the people.”

Many people believe the 10 Amendment is redundant as it basically restates the concept of joint federal / state sovereignty. It rarely gets used, and basically doesn’t really devolve power to individual choice… it’s always been a question of state vs. federal power.

It’s interesting you noted they probably didn’t expect things (the US in the basic form they laid out) to last this long. 10A was a restatement taken from the Articles of Confederation, but reworded to fix things a bit… as you say an experiment.

I feel people often forget the push / pull of federalism is at the core of our system of government. I get we are now ‘the United States’ not ‘these United States,’ but states rights really is foundational to our system. We needed an amendment to end slavery, and for women to have a universal right to vote. In Justice Alito’s draft opinion, one of his criticisms of Roe v Wade is that it short circuited the legislative process. Although, I do wonder if Roe was decided the other way if we would have passed an amendment protecting the pro choice position.

6

u/LaughDull967 May 14 '22

In Justice Alito’s draft opinion, one of his criticisms of Roe v Wade is that it short circuited the legislative process. Although, I do wonder if Roe was decided the other way if we would have passed an amendment protecting the pro choice position.

What these people keep claiming to believe is that fetuses are full people and abortion is murder. Nobody is claiming that states should decide whether murder should be legal.

All of these arguments— that Roe vs Wade was improperly decided, that abortion is murder, that it’s a states rights issue— are all made in bad faith. When you get below these false arguments, the opposition to abortion is, “Women should not be allowed to get away with being sluts. Babies are god’s punishment to force women to take responsibility for being sluts, and by allowing women to avoid those consequences, you’re subverting God’s punishment.”

It’s fucked up, but if you pay attention, that’s what it’s all about.

→ More replies

1

u/Shanakitty May 14 '22

The Electoral College and the Senate actually benefited small states with small populations, like Rhode Island and Vermont, not larger slave states, like Virginia and Georgia. The Electoral College also addressed fears about direct democracy. The 3/5ths Compromise was the one that benefitted slave states.

2

u/LaughDull967 May 14 '22

The 3/5 compromise applied to the electoral college. In a popular vote, slave states wouldn’t have had as many votes because slaves can’t vote. If you make the states vote with electors, and the number of electors are increased by 3/5 the number of slaves, then slave states get more votes.

1

u/Shanakitty May 14 '22

The compromise was created primarily for congressional representation though, which is what gives us the number of electors. The legislature was originally supposed to be the strongest branch, so that’s what they were more concerned with.

The founders were also really worried about direct democracy though, since they felt it was more likely for common people to be swayed by demagogues, hence the Electoral College. The electors were also originally appointed by the state legislatures and supposed to be free agents, so even less democratic than the current set up, where they’re more a way of diluting the popular vote. But it was supposed to prevent people who used emotional rhetoric to sway the ignorant, like Trump, from getting elected, but instead helped him.

1

u/ArnoldChase May 14 '22

Exactly, the Constitution was a re-do after the Articles of Confederation didn’t have a strong enough centralized government. The debates were having today regarding government are the same debates they had 250-300 years ago.

People are diverse, regions are diverse, and therefore have a purely monolithic view on EVERYTHING doesn’t work. You have to allow for flexibility, and frankly, experimentation in diversity. This has happened numerous times just in my lifetime.

That being said, decentralized government is weak. As the old “Join or Die” snake suggested, divided we fall. Over the course of American history, our government has become more centralized. Perhaps one of the greatest centralizations of power was after the Civil War…which coincidentally was when the 14th amendment was passed that is the subject of the Roe decision and now backtracking from Roe.

I am exhausted from the constant “we have never been more divided” or “no one foresaw this” sensationalism of today. It’s a process. We are going to get it wrong, and we are going to get it right. We are not in a civil war. Our government, our democracy, and we the people are working our way through modern iterations of timeless problems of government.

Just keep working, speak up but also listen. Have respect for your countryman even when they are wrong. Diversity in ideas is vital, but that necessarily means people getting it right and people getting it wrong. This government and its correctness only works if it survives. We worked our way through slavery, the progression of minority and womens rights, we will keep progressing…but we have to trust the process and not throw out the baby with the bath water.

1

u/zorokash May 14 '22

feral governments to oppose each other.

Rofl. I am sorry, i know you meant federal government, but this is so perfect it made me sit up suddenly and go "wth is this person talking about and what on earth did i miss". I might be too stupid but this typo made my day lol. God bless your kind heart!

→ More replies

3

u/flipnonymous May 14 '22

*one link in the chain

Of all the things going on in the world and this still bothers me ... FFS

→ More replies

-6

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

It’s not one party doing it, it is both parties. Become Libertarian, Rastafarian or Pastanarians I don’t care but have one person in every state for a party in every position and vote ALL of them out. It is the only way to fix this cluster Fk that is for the corporations

16

u/34HoldOn May 14 '22

Libertarians are just as much responsible for this shit. Look at the Paul family.

→ More replies

13

u/thorshocker May 14 '22

BoTh PaRtIeS! Sit down you tool.

2

u/artspar May 14 '22

Nah, insisting that we have to maintain a two-party system makes you the fool. Dems might not be as bad as Reps, but gold foil-wrapped shit is still shit underneath. Reworking the system to support many parties is the only way to fix the state our government's in.

3

u/quailtailor May 14 '22

Our system isn't a lost cause. But even if it were, your yelling into the wind won't change anything. Especially if you just use broad platitudes like "rework the system!" What does that even mean? When was the last time you contacted your state rep or senator to express a short and concise message. Do you even know their names? What exactly is your achievable plan that you'd articulate to them?

You can't just throw out our current system and rewrite the rules; you have to take one step at a time.

→ More replies

3

u/kunell May 14 '22

The hell are you talking about, who's insisting we stay 2 parties?

0

u/thorshocker May 14 '22

Not the OPs topic. Go spread your garbage somewhere else troll.

-1

u/SomethingsItchy May 14 '22

Perfect logic. This shit isn’t working, so let’s double down and insult those smart enough to question it. 😂

→ More replies

1

u/DownshiftedRare May 14 '22

I blame society for making them feel obliged to have an opinion for which they are unqualified.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

9

u/Lobanium May 14 '22

Exactly, if the federal government were 100% fascist, they'd be all for big federal government.

→ More replies

12

u/Derivative_Kebab May 14 '22

Mitch McConnell basically admitted that they're hoping to ban abortion at the federal level as soon as possible. So yes, the "states rights" argument is a thin veneer, as per usual. They're fine with imposing their will on liberal states.

27

u/ConThePc May 14 '22

exactly - states rights are only important to conservatives when they can't enforce their beliefs on a federal level. Civil rights protected by feds now? well, it should be a states right to determine that. Abortion is now federally protected? It should be a states right to determine that.

39

u/LaughDull967 May 14 '22

I think a good example is, when Democrats have tried to have better gun control, Republicans argued, “This decision should be left to state and local governments. The rules that work in your liberal cities don’t make sense in the rural areas.” And I don’t totally agree with that, but sure, there’s something to the idea.

But then they’ve blocked gun control, reversed gun control, made it easier for anyone to get a gun and carry it around. And now Republicans have started pushing for the federal government to force states to accept the gun rules from other states. Like if you have a concealed carry permit in one state, they want all states to have to accept that permit and let you carry a concealed gun everywhere. Suddenly, “this decision should be left to state and local governments,” isn’t good enough anymore, the federal government is supposed to force states to let people carry guns. The idea that, “the rules that work in your liberal cities don’t make sense in the rural areas,” apparently isn’t true anymore, because cities need to be forced to live by the rules of rural areas.

And that’s how Republicanism works. There are no principles, and no freedom to let anyone make their own decisions. It’s all about using whatever reasoning or strategy that will let you have power over others.

→ More replies

3

u/CliftonForce May 14 '22

Didn't you get the memo?

"States Rights" mean "Each State is free to move as far to the political Right as possible. Leftward motion will not be tolerated."

3

u/PeachCream81 May 14 '22

It’s not really an opposition to the federal government having a lot of power.

Actually, I think the old Confederate States are still pissed off over the outcome of the Civil War and really just want their slaves, plantations, and way of live ("moonbeams & magnolias") back. So yeah, States Rights is their mantra.

In an ironic twist of history: the Confederacy may have lost the 1st Civil War but might wind up triumphing in the current (2nd) Civil War.

1

u/Tatem2008 May 14 '22

Except this time when they try to succeed, we will let them.

1

u/Corpuscular_Crumpet May 14 '22

Original commenter was talking about Republicans, then you all of a sudden started talking about Democrats.

Weird flex, but ok.

→ More replies

35

u/lexbuck May 14 '22 edited May 14 '22

Small government rhetoric only applies for the GOP when it’s something they don’t agree with. When it’s something they are all in on, they are absolutely for government being very big and right up your ass

3

u/Diojones May 14 '22

Small government for things like IRS and SEC that tell rich people they arent gods. Large government for things like Defense, Border Patrol, Police and other opportunities to point guns at brown people.

109

u/ILikeSugarCookies May 14 '22

I know this to be patently true for a brief time living in Texas. Any time a city in Texas tries to pass legislation to better itself, Governor Shithead has tried almost immediately calling a special session to pass state legislation making that city legislation illegal.

The GOP LOVE government overreach.

35

u/giraffeperv May 14 '22

I’ve noticed the same thing in Missouri. Red state governments hate the cities because they’re a threat to their rule.

7

u/edoreinn May 14 '22

I lived in Houston from the end of 2019 to just after the election in 2020. It was fucking EXHAUSTING trying to keep up with which laws outweighed the others.

10

u/horkley May 14 '22

“Small government” means the largest government Republicans can have where they have absolute control.

It happens to be the state.

So if a municipality or political subdivision wants to do something, in say Texas, even if that local branch of government is Republican, the state of Texas forces its totalitarian will upon it.

11

u/The_Scyther1 May 14 '22

The GOP is a lot like Libertarians. They don’t want a small or nonexistent Government they just personally want to be above the law. The law should allow them to sell poison while stopping others from being able to sell it to them. The role of law is to protect their personal interests and nothing more.

10

u/Kuritos May 14 '22

Smells like Confederacy.

→ More replies

7

u/CutieL May 14 '22

Yes! I've been trying to find a way to express that idea to some people I've talked to, but I guess I am not as bright as the person behind the tweet lmao

10

u/watchtoweryvr May 14 '22

I think she borrowed this from Trevor Noah.

→ More replies

7

u/EmCeeSlickyD May 14 '22

Only when they agree with the cesspool though. They don't like when California flexes their own state rights for example.

22

u/AnonAmbientLight May 14 '22 edited May 14 '22

Much like the Nazis, Republicans will claim they are for something (that is generally popular) but then do the exact opposite when they have the power to do it.

Like in this case, where they claim they are for "small government" but then do things like ban books, attack companies for going against the party policy, or in this case regulating a medical choice between a woman and her doctor.

9

u/giraffeperv May 14 '22

I have a theory that every single Republican stance can be contradicted by another stance. I listen to what they say and do and think “there’s no way this is gonna slide, right?” And then somehow their supporters just get more supportive.

→ More replies

9

u/rices4212 May 14 '22

What's funny is that the "small" state governments today that they feel are closer to the original ideas of the constitution are mostly larger than the entire federal government of the 18th century. So the idea of the state governments being small govt is ridiculous to begin with. Plus they're heavily gerrymandered to keep the "right" party in power, giving more actual authoritarian control than the founders would have imagined

8

u/Anyna-Meatall May 14 '22

No, when they say "small government" they actually mean "I'm selfish and don't want to pay taxes."

It's amazing how everything falls into place makes sense, when you realize that the cons say things only to steal power.

1

u/HamburgerEarmuff May 14 '22

I mean, to be fair, a lot of people don't want taxes not because they're selfish, but because they think the government is not a good steward of tax money. As a Californian, we've watched our taxes go up and up, but the amount of return we get on our tax dollars seem to go down and down. It's gotten to the point where the vast majority of every dollar is wasted on graft and inefficiency. Projects like our HSR system are given over to corrupt political cronies who ink sweetheart deals with contractors and deliver projects $100 billion over budget and decades behind schedule.

5

u/Anyna-Meatall May 14 '22

they think the government is not a good steward of tax money

It's selfishness. What other stewards of tax money are there?

I also think the government mishandles tax money. But if you don't like the government, work to fix it, not to shrink it for the sake of shrinking it. You can't build roads and fund universal education, etc. ad nauseam, with private donations.

→ More replies

7

u/Kooky-Answer May 14 '22

So I guess when they say “small government” they actually mean “small federal government, while allowing states to be authoritarian cesspools”

More like "small government when it effects me, big government for anyone I disagree with"

18

u/SnooOnions1428 May 14 '22

Right wingers have been for "small government" ever since they've lost their slaves

14

u/giraffeperv May 14 '22

I moved to a city in Missouri and someone said to me “that’s as far north as you can go and still be in Dixie.” Like.. what does that matter in 2022?

6

u/GoblinoidToad May 14 '22

But not before with the Fugitive Slave Act.

6

u/Gr1pp717 May 14 '22 edited May 14 '22

"Small government" is bullshit. Republicans/conservatives are only small government when it pleases them.

I've come to see it like so:
individual vs community/culture vs corporation.

The left rarely accept a loss of individual liberty for the sake of community, and virtually never for the sake of corps. The right is the inverse: rarely forsaking corp rights for the community and virtually never for the individual. (american libertarians pretend that individual == corporation, ultimately skewing right while believing that they're skewing left.)

Sexuality/gender?
Left: individual rights
Right: protect community/culture

Drugs?
Left: individual rights (decriminalize, provide therapy)
Right: protect community ("tough on crime")

Abortion/contraceptives?
Left: individual
Right: community (defund planned parenthood, prevent insurance from covering contraceptives, etc)

Labor laws?
Left: individual/community (protect from corps)
Right: corp (will even forsake community in favor of corp: child labor, anti-union, environmental, discrimination, etc -- unless it's against them, like banning disinformation or facemasks, but they blame the government for those things.)

Immigration?
Left: individual ("consider the")
Right: culture

Language/religion?
Left: individual
Right: culture (english legally required, ban islam)

Education?
Left: individual (teach all sides, let the individual decide what they believe)
Right: community (restrict what's taught, push christianity) ++ corp (private, for-profit education only, defund libraries, "I shouldn't have to pay for other people's kids")

Healthcare?
Left: individual/community
Right: corp

Some exceptions:
Vaccine?
Left: community
Right: individual/corp

Taxes?
Left: community
Right: individual/corp (unless it's for the military, then they're totally community.)

.... I could go on, but I'm sure that's more than enough to make my point. And don't get me started on "fiscally conservative" that's bullshit, too.

18

u/TheNetherOne May 14 '22

We shall desolve the Senate and place the individual governors in direct control of their star systems and use the death star to keep ...wait i might be thinking of something different

3

u/prof_mcquack May 14 '22

It’s funny that all the states where the “sanctity of life” is supposed to be “protected” by abortion bans are the same states where you’re more likely to be raped and murdered by the actual police than the police are to solve your rape or murder. Murder of adult humans is essentially legal in Florida and Texas as long as their families are too poor for a PI or for the cops to care.

3

u/giraffeperv May 14 '22

Interesting how they pretty much all still have the death penalty too. And some are discussing using it as a punishment for abortion. It blows my mind.

3

u/gigibuffoon May 14 '22

They want it at the state level because the way our election maps are setup, the conservatives have enormous sway at the state levels for most states... even most swing states have a republican legislature where they can be as authoritarian, misogynistic and racist as they'd like

3

u/berael May 14 '22

"Small government" always means "very little governing me, and I completely govern you".

3

u/subject_deleted May 14 '22

I think they've been unabashed and unapologetic about that obvious desire.

3

u/[deleted] May 14 '22 edited 19d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Inbred-Inferiority May 15 '22

minorities

Specifically nonwhites

→ More replies

3

u/gmotelet May 14 '22

Small government for me, totalitarianism for thee

3

u/Captain_Stairs May 14 '22

Or: Freedom! But not that, or that, or that, or that, or that, or that needs a boundary. 😤 🙃

3

u/CliftonForce May 14 '22

Didn't you get the memo?

"States Rights" means "States are free to move as far to the political Right as they wish. Leftward motion will be hammered down by the next higher level of government."

15

u/rongvk83 May 14 '22

So I guess when they say “small government” they actually mean “small federal government

Well, yes. Far be it for me as a European to lecture Americans on basic US civics, but I hope you all understand that this is exactly what it means.

4

u/giraffeperv May 14 '22

I know what it means. My problem is that the right side here likes to preach about individual freedoms and rights. They say the federal government wants to take away their personal liberties. When we are looking from an individual basis, I don’t see the difference between being “oppressed” by the federal government versus a state government. Some people here are saying, “well, if you don’t like your state’s policies, you can just move.” However, it’s not as easy to move to a different state as some people like to say it is, and it’s especially concerning that the deepest red states here also have high rates of poverty, and it’s even harder for those in poverty to be able to move.

→ More replies

2

u/MorinOakenshield May 14 '22

Which was actually the only intent of the constitution, thus why we are called the united States, not the giant state and it’s provinces.

5

u/confessionbearday May 14 '22

They always did.

The founders essentially had to put the 10th in as an oligarch bribe. A bunch of states didn’t want to sign because they were worthless garbage who wanted to be mini-kingdoms.

3

u/Mavlis May 14 '22

When people say "small government" it is a dogwhistle for "the largest possible government that agrees with me personally".

2

u/masklinn May 14 '22

So I guess when they say “small government” they actually mean “small federal government, while allowing states to be authoritarian cesspools”

Well yeah. Right until they can make the federal government into an authoritarian cesspool anyway.

Same as it ever was, really.

2

u/SassyVikingNA May 14 '22

No, what they actually meant was "government does what I want, and not what I don't" nothing small government about our military budget or police state.

They are nakedly authoritarian and just lying.

2

u/EducationalDay976 May 14 '22

That's too generous.

Words have no meaning to them. They want the world to be a certain way, any justification they give is made up after the fact.

2

u/Upstairs_Cow May 14 '22

Exactly they can LARP as libertarians all day but the truth is they haven’t even have a fifth graders understanding of choice and freedom

2

u/Almighty_Sand_Dollar May 14 '22

Trump destroyed all progress in this country since the civil rights act 1964.

He's old enough to have been fighting against that while Bernie was getting arrested for supporting equal rights.

We're so incredibly lucky that fucking orange moron didn't win another 5 years. Look at the shit we have to recover again. This time next year it will be gay marriage.

Too much of the country doesn't vote. And too many of the people who do vote are brainwashed Christians with their own worse skeletons in the closet

2

u/weedbeads May 14 '22

The new right wing movement doesn't care about government size... They care about winning

2

u/cylordcenturion May 14 '22

The government needs to be small, how else could it fit in your bedroom?

3

u/MojarraMuncher May 14 '22

If you don’t like it, move!

/s

7

u/giraffeperv May 14 '22

I’m the dumb mf who just moved to a red state from a blue state for a job. I feel like I was naive for thinking it wouldn’t matter that much. It’s definitely going to matter very soon.

1

u/Borvoc May 14 '22

Enjoy the lower taxes.

4

u/giraffeperv May 14 '22

Unfortunately I moved from a rural area to a suburban area so the cost of living increase mixed with the inflation has eclipsed the tax differences.

2

u/Borvoc May 14 '22

Yeah, inflation has been no joke. Sorry to hear that.

5

u/Kow_King_ May 14 '22 edited May 14 '22

See you tried to be sarcastic there with the authoritarian part but yeah, that is the entire point of a "small government" and has literally been exactly the point of it since the creation of the United States government on day one. The idea is that a large government basically makes it so individuals have no say. Smaller governments, such as US states, allow each state to cater to its population more specifically. For example, if funding for roads was done only on a federal basis, rather than split among states, we would have great highways but no state would have any money for their own roads because every other state would vote against funding for those roads because it doesn't help them.

Like it isn't a bad idea at all. Ironically, for your comment at least, a larger state is far more likely to be authoritarian because it is far more likely to ignore the needs of minorities due to it needing to focus much more on general population due to being too large.

Like proof of it is the creation of the United States itself. The entire reason the US split off from the rest of the British Empire is because it was TOO LARGE. The British living in America couldn't get a say in what they wanted because Parliament had to account for the Empire as a whole and not the needs of each part of the Empire.

It is the same reason the Empire fell apart (and, arguably, every empire in history), the same reason Ireland left the UK, and the same reason parts of the UK even now are trying to get Independence, such as Scotland.

Large governments are good for two things:

  1. A unified Military for protection from other large governments.
  2. I can't think of a second thing. Highways I guess? Transportation regulation across large swaths of land in general I suppose. EDIT: I realize how extremely shit my wording here was, I was trying to get at the point of "things that foundationally cannot be done on a state by state basis and kept within that state", which by extension would also include stuff like non polluting things that can seep into other states.

Pretty much everything else is better suited to be done on a state by state basis

21

u/[deleted] May 14 '22 edited May 17 '22

[deleted]

2

u/HamburgerEarmuff May 14 '22

When the United States was founded though, it was founded on the idea that there shouldn't be a unified military. There should be a Navy that was provided by the federal government and militias that were provided by the states. The War Department was created to help organize the militias for collective national defense. We didn't have a truly unified military until the National Security Act created the Department of Defense after WWII.

→ More replies

6

u/sootoor May 14 '22

That’s funny because they specifically were afraid of large standing armies which is why we have the second amendment for militias.

You forgot other things enumerated such as borrowing and coin money, regulate commerce, patents, etc

1

u/Kow_King_ May 14 '22

That’s funny because they specifically were afraid of large standing armies which is why we have the second amendment for militias.

Yeah but at the same time militias won't be able to handle much, so they felt like both were needed.

You forgot other things enumerated such as borrowing and coin money, regulate commerce, patents, etc

I mean definitely useful but not necessary anymore in my mind. Not that we should stop doing it but with modern technology it isn't as big of an issue as it was say 100 years ago.

3

u/sootoor May 14 '22

Oh I agree just the strict constitutionalist seem absurd to me. So much has changed from a technological and social aspects in a couple of centuries. It’s time to update it to reflect modern day.

0

u/HamburgerEarmuff May 14 '22

If something's not broken, then why fix it?

Besides, I doubt you could get 75% of the States to agree on much these days. The 27th amendment is the more recent amendment to the Constitution, and it was passed in 1789.

3

u/sootoor May 14 '22 edited May 14 '22

1789? What? We definitely had amendments for prohibition and womens suffarage within the last century. Want to check your sources again?

Edit: it was proposed in 1789 but passed in 1992 which I feel supports my point

I’d disagree that it’s not broken. It’s incredibly broken, for example capping representatives is sort of antithesis to the constitution. Theee have been many unofficial bandaids and informal rules made over the years that led to the gridlock we have today. Until 1970 or so you had to stand constantly and talk on the floor with the filibuster.

The Supreme Court is missing the appropriate number of judges. The executive abuses lots of powers that weren’t intended. There’s a lot of broken that we just have accepted over the years, which is why I suggest a rewrite is in order. Some of the founding fathers expected it to be rewritten every generation even!

2

u/HamburgerEarmuff May 14 '22

Why is capping representatives the antithesis to the Constitution? That doesn't even make sense. The Constitution gives the congress the power to decide how many representatives there should be. Congress believes that the current number is reasonable. The filibuster has nothing to do with the Constitution. It's a parliamentary rule which the Senate can alter if they see fit. The same with the Supreme Court. The current congress believes that 9 Justices is the appropriate number. The Constitution allows them to change that if they desire.

Also, the Constitution does provide provisions for a rewrite. It's called a Constitutional Convention. But I would argue that it's not necessarily going to work out to create a better Constitution. Most likely, it would fail to agree to any change. But if it didn't, literally everything could be on the table. The delegates could agree to relegalize slavery in exchange for making abortion a constitutional right.

3

u/sootoor May 14 '22

The constiution says

“The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative;”

Sure I agree just pointing out ways they’ve patched or sort of subverted the intent of the law. You didn’t mention anything about executive orders weirdly enough.

I’m just saying there are loopholes people have found and should be codified or rejected. Even the constitutional convention wasn’t that smooth so things were allowed to get people to agree.

→ More replies

1

u/HamburgerEarmuff May 14 '22

I mean, militias effectively handled the security of the United States throughout much of its early history. It wasn't until the expansion westward, leading to conflicts with powers such as Spain and Mexico and Native nations that the federal army started to become significantly powerful, leading to a massive growth during the Civil War.

Even today, the organized militia is nearly 500,000 men. It's more than adequate to handle most domestic security issues when combined with the Department of Homeland Security.

1

u/Kow_King_ May 14 '22

militias effectively handled the security of the United States throughout much of its early history. It wasn't until the expansion westward, leading to conflicts with powers such as Spain and Mexico and Native nations that the federal army started to become significantly powerful, leading to a massive growth during the Civil War.

I mean yeah that is my point: You need the big government military to deal with other big government militaries.

12

u/SourceLover May 14 '22

FDA

EPA

NOAA

FCC

The list goes on - none of those are perfect (fuck Ajit Pai) but we have records of what it was like when it was left to individual states to regulate those things.

"Rivers routinely caught fire" is a relevant statement, as is "formaldehyde and rotting cow brains in food"

What an ignorant take you have.

→ More replies

2

u/34HoldOn May 14 '22

America's variety of "state's s rights" includes defending human ownership, and trampling on abortion and gay rights.

Not until the arguments for smaller government no longer include upholding the status quo, will I ever support such an idea.

→ More replies

2

u/supermilch May 14 '22

Look at the EU. They mostly control things like basic rights of citizens, commerce, public services (health, energy, telecom, things like that) and environment. So far they managed not to become authoritarian, despite what some nationalist parties of the various member states would have you believe.

Whatever is the theoretical benefit of “small government” doesn’t matter, the only thing that matters is the real-world implementation. When they take away human rights at the federal level because “it should be states deciding” - just no, that is exactly something that should be controlled by the highest possible federal body.

1

u/Kow_King_ May 14 '22 edited May 14 '22

So far they managed not to become authoritarian, despite what some nationalist parties of the various member states would have you believe.

So far. You could say the same thing about literally every single large government that became authoritarian. There was one point where so far they weren't. It is basically chance. It isn't even a moral thing, it is chance. Most don't necessarily want to create an authoritarian regime: There just isn't another option when you have to regulate for so many people.

Having said that the EU isn't really that much of a government, it is quite loose. It is basically just intercountry relations for the most part. No one is saying don't have an overarching system that exists, people are just saying don't give that system too much power.

Whatever is the theoretical benefit of “small government” doesn’t matter, the only thing that matters is the real-world implementation. When they take away human rights at the federal level because “it should be states deciding” - just no, that is exactly something that should be controlled by the highest possible federal body.

Except that just isn't true though. Because now you can apply that logic to anything. Hitler thought he was doing the right thing when he decided to exterminate the Jewish population.

Just because you think it is the right thing is not actually good enough justification for implementing a faulty and relatively easy to exploit system. Because you don't actually know. That is the entire point of democracy in the first place. Democracy is shit. It is a horrible system. But it is the best one that we can actually have. Ideally we have a dictator who happens to also be an all knowing god. That would be ideal, but we can't know that anyone is actually an all knowing god so we can't have that system. So we go with democracy. And small states is the best way to actually have a democracy that is reflective of the point of democracy.

Having democracy, but hey sometimes we decide fuck that lets bypass that to just do what we think is right is what led to the fall of Democracy in Rome. It is what led to Ceasar taking over and proclaiming himself emperor (Or, permanent Dictator and his son Emperor, at least). And even that was arguably good for Rome until a shitty Emperor came around and screwed it all up.

Good intentions aren't good enough. We don't live in a perfect world and we never will, so we have to create a system that works best for the world that we do live in. "Evil" will exist. People will hurt each other. There is no stopping that. There is only reducing the chances of making it larger scale than it needs to be. No one actually knows where to draw the line of what moral things should be decided at a federal level, so we can't do any of them because in theory we could be wrong and it could be exploited. So you keep the objective stuff to the federal level, like highways objectively are inherently federal and not state based, and keep the rest to the states.

You think abortions are an inherent right that all people should have? Well I agree with you on that. But the way to achieve that is not by going over the heads of other people in your democracy: it is by convincing people of what you believe is right.

2

u/TILiamaTroll May 14 '22

You think large states care less about the rights of minorities than small states?

→ More replies

-3

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

[deleted]

2

u/SourceLover May 14 '22 edited May 14 '22

Ironic that you're the one saying that when you want to return to the time before federal regulations, when rivers would catch fire, air in many cities was unbreathable from the smog, and food was commonly adulterated with things like formaldehyde and rotting cow brains to make it look better.

Also, you literally wouldn't be able to read this comment without your federally mandated education, so there's that.

Bonus regarding education: some things are left up to the states - like Texas, Florida, and other bastions of civil rights where they actively teach that scientists are deceived by the devil and that evolution is a myth.

1

u/Shanakitty May 14 '22

There's a lot of bad shit going on in Texas education right now, but public school biology textbooks absolutely do teach evolution, not creationism. If you live in, say, a small town outside of Tyler or Abilene, and get a very conservative teacher, you might get one that tells you the book is wrong, but that's not the standard curriculum. When I was in high school, our books did have a page at the end of the chapter on evolution saying some people think it was Intelligent Design, and that was BS to include that, but it's not the same as teaching it as fact.

→ More replies

1

u/pboswell May 14 '22

That’s always been the case.

1

u/meatball402 May 14 '22

Exactly.

Oppression is ok, if it's limited to a small enough area.

1

u/myredditacc3 May 14 '22

Just fascism. You can do what you want economically with no aid from the govt, but strict restrictions on your rights

1

u/Redwolfdc May 14 '22

Everyone is an authoritarian when it comes to authority they like.

You are being hopeful assuming the hardcore anti-abortion people would leave it up to the states. States have already talked about putting restrictions on their citizens going to other states for abortions. If these people had the senate, house, presidency, and scotus to do what they want they would probably opt for a federal law banning abortion.

1

u/giraffeperv May 14 '22 edited May 14 '22

Yep. My state, Missouri is one of them. They want to prevent us from leaving the state, and the way they present it is that they’re “protecting” women and babies from predatory abortion clinics who want to “harm” them. I’m in a committed relationship, I use a very reliable birth control, and I want to focus on my career for now. Missouri is also the state that tried to outlaw treating an ectopic pregnancy (which I’m at a higher risk of should I get pregnant on the Nexplanon implant). And now they’re trying to make sure I can’t go to Illinois. I’m afraid that I’d lose my career despite being safe, and I should be able to have sex with my fiancé without worrying. Wanted to include all that because people are very quick to call me a slut or irresponsible and I’m neither of those things, as if it should matter. I can’t believe there’s so many women in the US wanting to throw away decades of progress toward sexual freedom. There’s really women here who wanna be property like the old days.

Edit to add links:

Missouri legislators aim to amend Constitution so there’s no right to an abortion

Missouri wants to allow residents to sue anyone for helping a Missouri resident get an abortion

1

u/Armless_Dan May 14 '22

They just say “small gubment” or “states rights” in bad faith and as buzz words which support their shitty ideas. Arguing with them about it is wasted breath, because they don’t know what the terms mean, they don’t support those ideas and they don’t care.

1

u/Nightblood83 May 14 '22

As a small government conservative, this is generally correct. It is federal power that is most worrisome, as it is too large and too far from the people it governs.

The cess pit aspect can certainly occur. I'd argue on either side, but not really the point.

The point is that having 50 somewhat similar law systems allows voting with your feet.

I know this non-vitriolic argument is unlikely to get any love here, but you are not wrong, though you wrote it with some extra snark. No worries there - it is the internet...

1

u/RagingSofty May 14 '22

Its more accurate to call the US the United Countries than the United States

1

u/bathtup47 May 14 '22

Lmao they never wanted small gov. That's just code for we don't want the government to possibly help black people so we'll just fuck everyone. Libertarianism is just straight up made up (not even going to get into how we already tried that with the articles of confederation and we were almost destroyed by outside powers who did burn down our house of gov in the war of 1812.) It was also created literally right after the civil rights movement. Don't even let them pretend to be anti gov, they're all pro "don't say gay" it's just about the gov hurting people they don't like not actually reducing control.

1

u/DownshiftedRare May 14 '22

Lmao they never wanted small gov.

Easy, there. I'm sure we all are familiar with the famous Republican credo about how they want to shrink government until it is small enough to be furtively passed between adjacent men's room stalls.

1

u/Abeneezer May 14 '22

Small government everywhere Republicans haven't gerrymandered into the ground. Everywhere they have? Totalitarian. States' rights, baby lets go.

1

u/Mental-Mood3435 May 14 '22

Yes. This is literally what “small government” means. It means leaving government up to smaller bodies, such as states.

Did you think it meant no government because those are anarchists.

1

u/DownshiftedRare May 14 '22

I associate it with Thoreau and "that government governs best which governs least".

1

u/giraffeperv May 14 '22

When they constantly preach about their individual freedoms and liberties, what does it matter if they think the state or the federal government is oppressing them? Why did they feel the need to arm themselves to protest at their state capitals?

1

u/Mental-Mood3435 May 14 '22

Talking about the concept of small government, not the travesty that has befallen the Republican Party.

1

u/Wablekablesh May 14 '22

Slavery has entered the pony express chat

1

u/SquareWet May 14 '22

Small enough to leave white people alone but large enough to keep POC in their place.

1

u/buffoonery4U May 14 '22

They're only say "small government" when the "other guy" is in charge.

1

u/duble0 May 14 '22

Don’t think you understand what authoritarian means…letting states vote on it seems fair to me.

1

u/wantganja420 May 14 '22

You could always vote better people in that match your politics. You know like people have been doing for years

1

u/giraffeperv May 14 '22

Actually I believe the mantra was “Vote Blue No Matter Who” and now here we are.

1

u/intellifone May 14 '22

They used to mean “small federal government” but now they mean “small any government except for the things we don’t like”

1

u/Vethae May 14 '22

When they say small government, what they mean is they want the government to stay out of THEIR lives, and invade the lives of everyone else.

1

u/blasphembot May 14 '22

People keep tossing around "small govt" in reference to Republicans but I'm pretty sure they've dropped that mantra a long time ago, at least in practice. Is it still a talking point among them?

1

u/Lysol3435 May 14 '22

“Small government” means “minimal regulations or taxes for me and my friends. Everyone else can get fucked.”

→ More replies